Physics is understood and experienced by the human mind.All human understanding and experience can be reduced to perception.Physics is no more accurate than any other existential proposition.

I assert that many people take the knowledge of physics for granted as solid proofs of the existence of matter, physics does not prove anything for it is just a way of thinking about perception.

But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - WattsThe moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts

True. However, since perception is the only thing we can rely on, we should believe it. As long as it works for us, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Physics works for us, so there is no need to seek something more accurate.

At 4/16/2012 12:26:34 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:True. However, since perception is the only thing we can rely on, we should believe it. As long as it works for us, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Physics works for us, so there is no need to seek something more accurate.

I believe the mind has supernatural abilities because i perceive events that physics attempts to disprove. I think that the solidity of teaching physics as solid fact in our society subconsciously robs individuals of the other 90% of their brain power. Perhaps if physics were completely omitted from the mind, the Earth would suddenly appear to be less like a pile of rocks and more like a bowl of soup, because what we know forms our perceptions and vice versa.

But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - WattsThe moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts

At 4/16/2012 12:38:13 PM, drafterman wrote:Physics doesn't attempt to disprove anything. It is man's attempt to describe reality as it is. If you perceive something different then what physics says is possible then prove it.

I should have been clearer in stating that many 'physicists' attempt to disprove supernal power. I don't believe that I alone have to power to prove my idea, but working on this idea would culminate the genius of our time and i'm searching for people who agree with the general idea.

But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - WattsThe moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts

At 4/16/2012 12:38:13 PM, drafterman wrote:Physics doesn't attempt to disprove anything. It is man's attempt to describe reality as it is. If you perceive something different then what physics says is possible then prove it.

The idea is that nothing can be proven, science is not fact - therefore devaluing is the only possibility, ever.

But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - WattsThe moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts

At 4/16/2012 12:38:13 PM, drafterman wrote:Physics doesn't attempt to disprove anything. It is man's attempt to describe reality as it is. If you perceive something different then what physics says is possible then prove it.

The idea is that nothing can be proven, science is not fact - therefore devaluing is the only possibility, ever.

Wrong. Asking you to prove your idea is another way of asking you to disprove what aspect of physics you believe is incorrect. The falsifiability of science is a core component.

So, what specific aspect of physics do you believe is wrong and how do you intend to disprove it?

At 4/16/2012 12:38:13 PM, drafterman wrote:Physics doesn't attempt to disprove anything. It is man's attempt to describe reality as it is. If you perceive something different then what physics says is possible then prove it.

The idea is that nothing can be proven, science is not fact - therefore devaluing is the only possibility, ever.

Wrong. Asking you to prove your idea is another way of asking you to disprove what aspect of physics you believe is incorrect. The falsifiability of science is a core component.

So, what specific aspect of physics do you believe is wrong and how do you intend to disprove it?

All ideas are subjective, nothing can be proven. If a single person disagrees with something, then it has not been totally proven. Who is to say that 1million people believing in something makes it any more true than a single person believing something? Throughout history, science has always been wrong and exponentially growing as we discover more things. What used to be understood as common knowledge is now seen as mere misinterpretations and we now have new ideas and labels to describe life.

But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - WattsThe moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts

At 4/16/2012 12:23:39 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:Physics is understood and experienced by the human mind.All human understanding and experience can be reduced to perception.Physics is no more accurate than any other existential proposition.

This is using the science of deduction to disprove the reality of physical evidence, thus science disproves itself.

But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - WattsThe moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts

But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - WattsThe moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts

At 4/16/2012 12:38:13 PM, drafterman wrote:Physics doesn't attempt to disprove anything. It is man's attempt to describe reality as it is. If you perceive something different then what physics says is possible then prove it.

The idea is that nothing can be proven, science is not fact - therefore devaluing is the only possibility, ever.

Wrong. Asking you to prove your idea is another way of asking you to disprove what aspect of physics you believe is incorrect. The falsifiability of science is a core component.

So, what specific aspect of physics do you believe is wrong and how do you intend to disprove it?

All ideas are subjective, nothing can be proven. If a single person disagrees with something, then it has not been totally proven. Who is to say that 1million people believing in something makes it any more true than a single person believing something? Throughout history, science has always been wrong and exponentially growing as we discover more things. What used to be understood as common knowledge is now seen as mere misinterpretations and we now have new ideas and labels to describe life.

At 4/16/2012 12:38:13 PM, drafterman wrote:Physics doesn't attempt to disprove anything. It is man's attempt to describe reality as it is. If you perceive something different then what physics says is possible then prove it.

The idea is that nothing can be proven, science is not fact - therefore devaluing is the only possibility, ever.

Wrong. Asking you to prove your idea is another way of asking you to disprove what aspect of physics you believe is incorrect. The falsifiability of science is a core component.

So, what specific aspect of physics do you believe is wrong and how do you intend to disprove it?

All ideas are subjective, nothing can be proven. If a single person disagrees with something, then it has not been totally proven. Who is to say that 1million people believing in something makes it any more true than a single person believing something? Throughout history, science has always been wrong and exponentially growing as we discover more things. What used to be understood as common knowledge is now seen as mere misinterpretations and we now have new ideas and labels to describe life.

You neither addressed my point nor answered the question.

I believe that all aspects of physics as they currently stand will eventually become devalued, i don't believe it to be possible to prove or disprove anything. I do not totally agree with anything scientific or otherwise.

But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - WattsThe moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts

At 4/16/2012 12:38:13 PM, drafterman wrote:Physics doesn't attempt to disprove anything. It is man's attempt to describe reality as it is. If you perceive something different then what physics says is possible then prove it.

I should have been clearer in stating that many 'physicists' attempt to disprove supernal power. I don't believe that I alone have to power to prove my idea, but working on this idea would culminate the genius of our time and i'm searching for people who agree with the general idea.

What supernatural power do you claim to have?What is your intended process for proving your idea?

At 4/16/2012 12:26:34 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:True. However, since perception is the only thing we can rely on, we should believe it. As long as it works for us, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Physics works for us, so there is no need to seek something more accurate.

I believe the mind has supernatural abilities because i perceive events that physics attempts to disprove. I think that the solidity of teaching physics as solid fact in our society subconsciously robs individuals of the other 90% of their brain power. Perhaps if physics were completely omitted from the mind, the Earth would suddenly appear to be less like a pile of rocks and more like a bowl of soup, because what we know forms our perceptions and vice versa.

At 4/16/2012 12:26:34 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:True. However, since perception is the only thing we can rely on, we should believe it. As long as it works for us, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Physics works for us, so there is no need to seek something more accurate.

I believe the mind has supernatural abilities because i perceive events that physics attempts to disprove. I think that the solidity of teaching physics as solid fact in our society subconsciously robs individuals of the other 90% of their brain power. Perhaps if physics were completely omitted from the mind, the Earth would suddenly appear to be less like a pile of rocks and more like a bowl of soup, because what we know forms our perceptions and vice versa.

The bolded is false, BTW.

how can it be false? I said "I think..." therefore making it true, because i do think that.

Also, i have the ability to perceive what some people call auras or energetic rings around objects. I'm not quite sure how to prove it other than one on one coaching.

But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - WattsThe moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts

At 4/16/2012 12:26:34 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:True. However, since perception is the only thing we can rely on, we should believe it. As long as it works for us, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Physics works for us, so there is no need to seek something more accurate.

I believe the mind has supernatural abilities because i perceive events that physics attempts to disprove. I think that the solidity of teaching physics as solid fact in our society subconsciously robs individuals of the other 90% of their brain power. Perhaps if physics were completely omitted from the mind, the Earth would suddenly appear to be less like a pile of rocks and more like a bowl of soup, because what we know forms our perceptions and vice versa.

The bolded is false, BTW.

how can it be false? I said "I think..." therefore making it true, because i do think that.

The 90% of the brain part is nonsense. We use the entirety of our brain. Not all at once, sure, but the idea that any significant part of our brain is dormant, excepting some form of physical brain damage, is false.

Also, i have the ability to perceive what some people call auras or energetic rings around objects. I'm not quite sure how to prove it other than one on one coaching.

At 4/16/2012 12:26:34 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:True. However, since perception is the only thing we can rely on, we should believe it. As long as it works for us, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Physics works for us, so there is no need to seek something more accurate.

I believe the mind has supernatural abilities because i perceive events that physics attempts to disprove. I think that the solidity of teaching physics as solid fact in our society subconsciously robs individuals of the other 90% of their brain power. Perhaps if physics were completely omitted from the mind, the Earth would suddenly appear to be less like a pile of rocks and more like a bowl of soup, because what we know forms our perceptions and vice versa.

The bolded is false, BTW.

how can it be false? I said "I think..." therefore making it true, because i do think that.

The 90% of the brain part is nonsense. We use the entirety of our brain. Not all at once, sure, but the idea that any significant part of our brain is dormant, excepting some form of physical brain damage, is false.

Also, i have the ability to perceive what some people call auras or energetic rings around objects. I'm not quite sure how to prove it other than one on one coaching.

How many CAT scans have you had?

Why mention a CAT scan? I've had one a few months ago to settle a legal thing (interesting story). Anyway, where is the proof that we use all of our brain and that none of it lies dormant? What makes my idea false and not valid?

But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - WattsThe moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts

At 4/16/2012 12:26:34 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:True. However, since perception is the only thing we can rely on, we should believe it. As long as it works for us, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Physics works for us, so there is no need to seek something more accurate.

I believe the mind has supernatural abilities because i perceive events that physics attempts to disprove. I think that the solidity of teaching physics as solid fact in our society subconsciously robs individuals of the other 90% of their brain power. Perhaps if physics were completely omitted from the mind, the Earth would suddenly appear to be less like a pile of rocks and more like a bowl of soup, because what we know forms our perceptions and vice versa.

The bolded is false, BTW.

how can it be false? I said "I think..." therefore making it true, because i do think that.

The 90% of the brain part is nonsense. We use the entirety of our brain. Not all at once, sure, but the idea that any significant part of our brain is dormant, excepting some form of physical brain damage, is false.

Also, i have the ability to perceive what some people call auras or energetic rings around objects. I'm not quite sure how to prove it other than one on one coaching.

How many CAT scans have you had?

Why mention a CAT scan? I've had one a few months ago to settle a legal thing (interesting story).

Because such brain scans would be useful in determining the cause of various perceptions. You know, rigourously investigating this ability you claim to happen.

Anyway, where is the proof that we use all of our brain and that none of it lies dormant?

At 4/16/2012 12:26:34 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:True. However, since perception is the only thing we can rely on, we should believe it. As long as it works for us, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Physics works for us, so there is no need to seek something more accurate.

I believe the mind has supernatural abilities because i perceive events that physics attempts to disprove. I think that the solidity of teaching physics as solid fact in our society subconsciously robs individuals of the other 90% of their brain power. Perhaps if physics were completely omitted from the mind, the Earth would suddenly appear to be less like a pile of rocks and more like a bowl of soup, because what we know forms our perceptions and vice versa.

The bolded is false, BTW.

how can it be false? I said "I think..." therefore making it true, because i do think that.

The 90% of the brain part is nonsense. We use the entirety of our brain. Not all at once, sure, but the idea that any significant part of our brain is dormant, excepting some form of physical brain damage, is false.

Also, i have the ability to perceive what some people call auras or energetic rings around objects. I'm not quite sure how to prove it other than one on one coaching.

How many CAT scans have you had?

Why mention a CAT scan? I've had one a few months ago to settle a legal thing (interesting story).

Because such brain scans would be useful in determining the cause of various perceptions. You know, rigourously investigating this ability you claim to happen.

Anyway, where is the proof that we use all of our brain and that none of it lies dormant?

Countless mappings and recordings of brain activity.

What makes my idea false and not valid?

Reality.

How can your reality falsify my reality It can't, nor can you claim the realities of anybody else as being akin to yours. Also, CAT scans determine brain wave activity, they don't "verify" perceptions.

But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - WattsThe moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts

At 4/16/2012 12:26:34 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:True. However, since perception is the only thing we can rely on, we should believe it. As long as it works for us, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Physics works for us, so there is no need to seek something more accurate.

I believe the mind has supernatural abilities because i perceive events that physics attempts to disprove. I think that the solidity of teaching physics as solid fact in our society subconsciously robs individuals of the other 90% of their brain power. Perhaps if physics were completely omitted from the mind, the Earth would suddenly appear to be less like a pile of rocks and more like a bowl of soup, because what we know forms our perceptions and vice versa.

The bolded is false, BTW.

how can it be false? I said "I think..." therefore making it true, because i do think that.

The 90% of the brain part is nonsense. We use the entirety of our brain. Not all at once, sure, but the idea that any significant part of our brain is dormant, excepting some form of physical brain damage, is false.

Also, i have the ability to perceive what some people call auras or energetic rings around objects. I'm not quite sure how to prove it other than one on one coaching.

How many CAT scans have you had?

Why mention a CAT scan? I've had one a few months ago to settle a legal thing (interesting story).

Because such brain scans would be useful in determining the cause of various perceptions. You know, rigourously investigating this ability you claim to happen.

Anyway, where is the proof that we use all of our brain and that none of it lies dormant?

Countless mappings and recordings of brain activity.

What makes my idea false and not valid?

Reality.

How can your reality falsify my reality It can't, nor can you claim the realities of anybody else as being akin to yours. Also, CAT scans determine brain wave activity, they don't "verify" perceptions.

Your getting things confused.

1. Mapping of brain activity proves that the 90% dormant brain stuff is nonsense.2. We can verify perceptions. Conditions such as synesthesia have syptoms which are entirely based in perception. Nevertheless, there exist objective methods for determining who has it, and several leads as to the neurological basis for the condition.

The 90% stuff is essentially debunked i'm with you on that at this point. Alright, so with that i will assert that exercising the pineal gland is the way in which I am able to perceive auras, and experience other events that are best described as supernatural for some reason and not ' Pineal.'

But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - WattsThe moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts

Supernatural events are physically located in the pineal gland, sort of the imagination station. But just as some people cannot roll their 'r's' or flutter their eyelids, it is a matter of being able to consciously feel the brain which most people cannot do. That is not to say its not real.

But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - WattsThe moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts

At 4/16/2012 1:52:18 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:The 90% stuff is essentially debunked i'm with you on that at this point. Alright, so with that i will assert that exercising the pineal gland is the way in which I am able to perceive auras, and experience other events that are best described as supernatural for some reason and not ' Pineal.'

So the question is, the auras you perceive, do they have a basis in objective reality? That is, are you perceiving something that actually exists? If so, what?

At 4/16/2012 1:52:18 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:The 90% stuff is essentially debunked i'm with you on that at this point. Alright, so with that i will assert that exercising the pineal gland is the way in which I am able to perceive auras, and experience other events that are best described as supernatural for some reason and not ' Pineal.'

So the question is, the auras you perceive, do they have a basis in objective reality? That is, are you perceiving something that actually exists? If so, what?

I believe i am perceiving the electromagnetic field visually. Some may argue this is not possible but if it were not possible vision would not be possible, because light waves are electromagnetic, and the auras I perceive are light. I don't perpetual perceive them, I have to concentrate, like any other non readily available bodily function.. it takes effort it's not second nature.

But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - WattsThe moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts

Some people see less of the spectrum (color blind) and some see more. Those that don't see more of the spectrum are quick to attack people like me because it cannot be proven to them specifically.

But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - WattsThe moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts

But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - WattsThe moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts

Yes, light is electromagnetic, but there is a difference between the electromagnetic spectrum of light and electromagnetic fields generated by various things. Indeed, both are made up of photons, but of different kinds.

Electromagnetic fields are made up of virtual photons (http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk...) and are not seen. The photons need to be exchanged between the objects that are being affected by the electromagnetic force; if they were intercepted by your retina, allowing you to see anything, then there would be no exchange of force - there would be no electromagnetic field.

One possible interpretation is that you aren't directly seeing the electromagnetic field, but rather the field is interacting with something around the source that is causing it to generate real photons, and that is what you are seeing. However, if this was the case we could easily detect this using the same devices we detect all frequencies of light.

Now, your statement about the color blind is not true. They don't see less light than anyone else, rather they simply do not distinguish between certain frequencies of light. For example, they still see red and green wavelengths of light; they simply cannot tell them apart.

So, no, if your claim is what you say it is, it is not outside the realm of scientific scrutiny and objective validation.

At 4/16/2012 12:26:34 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:True. However, since perception is the only thing we can rely on, we should believe it. As long as it works for us, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Physics works for us, so there is no need to seek something more accurate.

I believe the mind has supernatural abilities because i perceive events that physics attempts to disprove. I think that the solidity of teaching physics as solid fact in our society subconsciously robs individuals of the other 90% of their brain power. Perhaps if physics were completely omitted from the mind, the Earth would suddenly appear to be less like a pile of rocks and more like a bowl of soup, because what we know forms our perceptions and vice versa.

The bolded is false, BTW.

There you go again, drafterman. Making me redundant >.< lol

: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.

At 4/16/2012 12:26:34 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:True. However, since perception is the only thing we can rely on, we should believe it. As long as it works for us, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Physics works for us, so there is no need to seek something more accurate.

I believe the mind has supernatural abilities because i perceive events that physics attempts to disprove. I think that the solidity of teaching physics as solid fact in our society subconsciously robs individuals of the other 90% of their brain power. Perhaps if physics were completely omitted from the mind, the Earth would suddenly appear to be less like a pile of rocks and more like a bowl of soup, because what we know forms our perceptions and vice versa.

The bolded is false, BTW.

There you go again, drafterman. Making me redundant >.< lol

That's the exact sentence I honed in on and thought "false! false!"

: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.

At 4/16/2012 2:10:49 PM, drafterman wrote:Yes, light is electromagnetic, but there is a difference between the electromagnetic spectrum of light and electromagnetic fields generated by various things. Indeed, both are made up of photons, but of different kinds.

Electromagnetic fields are made up of virtual photons (http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk...) and are not seen. The photons need to be exchanged between the objects that are being affected by the electromagnetic force; if they were intercepted by your retina, allowing you to see anything, then there would be no exchange of force - there would be no electromagnetic field.

One possible interpretation is that you aren't directly seeing the electromagnetic field, but rather the field is interacting with something around the source that is causing it to generate real photons, and that is what you are seeing. However, if this was the case we could easily detect this using the same devices we detect all frequencies of light.

Now, your statement about the color blind is not true. They don't see less light than anyone else, rather they simply do not distinguish between certain frequencies of light. For example, they still see red and green wavelengths of light; they simply cannot tell them apart.

So, no, if your claim is what you say it is, it is not outside the realm of scientific scrutiny and objective validation.

I believe there are devices that detect aural waves. It's called biofeedback photographic technology.

But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - WattsThe moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts